A push for detainees’ safety, rights in Hanscom ICE flights

Former Select Board member Terri Ackerman says Immigration and Customs Enforcement flights raise key questions for Hanscom Field administrators. 

She hopes authorities embrace a possible legal answer.

“Don’t they want to protect against human trafficking?” she asked in a recent Acton Bridge interview, flagging fears about due process violations and unsafe conditions. “Don’t they want to have safety protocols so nobody dies on the plane?” 

An ICE spokesperson confirmed the agency resumed using Hanscom in September to shuttle detainees around the country.

As human rights advocates ramp up pressure, New Hampshire-based lawyer Megan Chapman has offered to discuss options under the constitutional “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” to at least extract detainee protections. 

“It has to be carefully crafted, but there are ways states, state agencies, [and] state subdivisions can stand up and assert their independent sovereignty,” she told the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission.

Massport spokesperson Jennifer Mehigan told The Bridge in a statement that the agency “is open to any and all suggestions,” but “our understanding is” that a federal court rejected this argument under similar circumstances. 

Facing related transparency demands, one leader recently doubled down on claims that Massport wasn’t being notified when ICE used its runways. Newly released emails show that wasn’t entirely true.

Email disclosures

ICE staff won’t share specifics about their Hanscom presence. 

Airport advisors asked Massport for ICE flight data. Hanscom Director Christopher Willenborg responded with a letter saying, in part, that officials “do not receive advance notification.” 

An advocate tested this with a public records request and received a September 5 exchange between Willenborg and a representative for Signature Aviation, an airfield service provider.

Signature’s Hanscom general manager, Tony Caruso, told Willenborg that “ICE charter flights” were set for “this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon,” according to a copy of the emails that was shared with The Bridge.

Willenborg asked Caruso to call him. 

The advocate who obtained Caruso’s emails asked to remain anonymous. The Lexington Observer first reported the content of the conversation.

Ackerman, who represents Acton on the Hanscom advisory panel, said the contradiction between the emails and Willenborg’s letter to the group “speaks for itself.” 

Mehigan said this was the only email chain related to ICE flights at Hanscom in the two years covered under the advocate’s request. 

Signature is one of three Hanscom “fixed base operators.” FBOs provide services such as hangar space and, in some cases, refueling.

Mehigan said Massport “has no direct involvement in the scheduling or operations of these flights” and they’re “managed exclusively by the fixed base operators.”

Refueling-hazard questions

Willenborg referred the advisory commission to ICE for flight data. On November 18, members peppered an ICE representative with additional questions.

HFAC Chair Margaret Coppe asked whether agents leave shackled detainees in their seats while crews refuel planes. 

“What if, God forbid, there were some sort of accident during the refueling?” she said. 

Chris Celozzi, an ICE Boston public affairs representative, said he couldn’t answer questions himself but would report back to his bosses. The Bridge contacted an ICE spokesperson after the meeting, but didn’t hear back.

Demonstrators have rallied against detainee flights and singled out Signature for allegedly supporting detainee flights. 

In an unsigned statement this summer, a corporate spokesperson said Signature doesn’t release client information.

The spokesperson said Signature must “indiscriminately support flight operations” that meet applicable requirements and said the firm is focused on providing “safe, consistent, and comprehensive” support.

 Not everyone opposes current federal policy or calls to bounce ICE from Hanscom.

“They’re following the federal law,” Concordian Chris Reynolds said during an early-October demonstration in Monument Square. “If the law needs to be changed, then we should change the law — not decide not to obey it.”

On the advisory commission, most panelists have condemned immigration enforcement tactics under President Donald Trump. 

HFAC pressured Massport, and members now hope the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine — rooted in the 10th Amendment — will spur the quasi-public agency to stiffen its spine.

Rules and guardrails

Chapman said she and others on a pro bono legal team have been in touch with New Hampshire authorities about previous flights at Pease International Airport. She’s presented at several meetings in recent months and told the Hanscom advisory commission that she’d be “more than happy” to help Massport draft requirements for ICE. 

Ackerman suggested these could include guardrails around refueling and a requirement to share information. 

Chapman said rules could also include screening of each passenger to make sure ICE isn’t denying anyone due process or moving someone in violation of a court order.

These kinds of requirements have precedent, Chapman said, adding, “When those kinds of restrictions are put in place, oftentimes it means that ICE decides to stop operating through that airport.”

Chapman suggested meeting with Massport’s legal team. Hanscom Manager of Administration Amber Goodspeed said she would relay the invitation. Ackerman volunteered to be part of a meeting.

“I’m very interested to see if Massport will hear us out,” Ackerman told The Bridge. “We’re hoping that they will see the light.”